On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:17:06PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:55:24PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Not really interested in the case where you actually did infringe on > > the license. I don't think it's worthwhile to worry about whether we > > discriminate against such people.
> > Nuisance lawsuits are the canonical example of the important part > > here. That's the scenario where choice-of-venue is bad. > Ok, thank you for clarifying that. I think we need to consider the point > that Matthew has been raising though, that a choice of venue clause may be > important for a program author to successfully defend their copyright. A "no modifications allowed" clause may be important for a program author to successfully protect their reputation, but we don't consider such a restriction free; one *should* be able to defend one's reputation relying only on a "identify all changes prominently" clause, and one *should* be able to defend one's copyright within the existing framework governing personal jurisdiction. > If the justification for this is to be grounded in the discrimination > clause of the DFSG, we can't choose to discriminate against the > program's authors. Even if we accept this argument, how is putting the authors on equal footing with the users "discrimination"? > If this is to be grounded in the clause about not requiring a fee, we can't > require that the program's author be forced to take on the burden of such a > fee if they need to defend their copyright. Sorry, this sentence registers as complete nonsense to me. If you're going to claim that requiring certain things of *authors* before their code can be included in Debian is a "fee", how is this particular "fee" different from the "fee" of publishing source code? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
